Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Used Software Can Be Sold, Says EU Court of Justice

Posted by timothy on from the over-and-over-and-over dept.

Sique writes "An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his 'used' licenses allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a license is exhausted on its first sale. This was decided [Tuesday] (PDF) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in a case of Used Soft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp.."

8 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Absolutely amazed by this decision by RoverDaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has enormous implications. I just wonder how many threats to 'take their ball and go home' will ensue, followed by threads of 'I'm getting my dad (the US government)'.

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    1. Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if this has any implications for game developers?

      I've always though the tactic of enabling multiplayer (and nowadays even some single player) via a code that's become prevalent in just about every console game over the last year or two really stank of a complete breach of the precedent of the right to sell your content on second hand.

      Similarly, I wonder if it has any implications for Valve, with whom you're forced to activate some games with to prevent resale?

      I know a lot of people here will defend Valve etc., but really, computer software is about the only product I know of whereby you're artificially prevented from selling on in the same working manner you can consume it in second hand. Toasters, clothes, cars, music CDs, DVDs, books, plants, furniture, washing machines - just what other products are there other than games that have these artificially restrictions in place to prevent resale? Should they really be allowed to get away with it by simply claiming they're anti-piracy measures when we all know the pirates nearly always get their copies earlier precisely because they don't contain these measures?

    2. Re:Absolutely amazed by this decision by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Assuming you mean online multiplayer, the developer/publisher provides the service that allows the multiplayer to happen. It's underhanded, true, but also understandable, as (usage of) the service is licensed separately to the game itself."

      Does it? XBox Live costs me £40 a year and multiplayer on every single game I've played bar Battlefield 3 is peer to peer. I don't disagree with you if we're talking about something like WoW where there is significant server overhead, I don't even disagree with something like BF3, though ironically with BF3 not only have they introduced a subscription service, they've actually stopped providing 99.99% of their servers and instead charge people to run their own. I guess I can't fault them as it works, but certainly on consoles there's negligible expenditure on multiplayer costs - the bulk of it is paid for by Microsoft by way of the Live infrastructure rather than the games companies themselves.

      It's frustrating too, because me and my girlfriend both enjoyed Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit, we both have an XBox, and we both have a Live subscription, yet because of the activation code she can't play multiplayer whilst I'm playing a different game on my console without paying yet another £10 despite the fact we already paid for the game first hand.

      Effectively we've reached a point now where you have to actually buy a copy of many games for every person in the house that wants to play multiplayer, rather than where you'd just need a copy per household previously. We're quick to criticise the music industry because they've been trying to make us rebuy content we've already paid for for years now, but we seem to have sleepwalked into allowing games companies to get away with exactly this.

  2. Well of Course by jasper160 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not? I can re-sell my car, books, records, and cassettes. Software should be no different.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  3. Re:So what about the stores? by imagined.by · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Europe, or at least in Germany, this never was really the case. Simple reason: You can only read the license agreement AFTER you open the box, which makes everything in the EULA null and void. Common sense if you ask me.

  4. Re:Diablo 3 refunds? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope so... I know it won't happen in the US.... Which actually says a lot. As Americans we are used to getting what we paid for. If something sucks, we're entitled to our money back.

    No refunds in the US, but you can still sell it. I've made a separate Bliz account for each of their recent products and sold the account when I'm done with it. For their two most recent games, "done" came two days after purchase.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  5. Re:Just in time... by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Upgrades are a special case. When you upgrade "most" products, you don't get another license... the old one is extinguished the moment you activate the new one.

    Also, did the court rule that consumers have the *right* to buy & sell used licenses, or merely that it doesn't constitute infringement? Big difference -- in case 1, the licensor must cooperate. In case 2, they can't sue you, but can use DRM to render the used license worthless.

  6. I wonder what happens with volume licenses? by shione · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. buy laptop with a forced copy of windows
    2. extract windows key
    3. rplace windows with Linux
    4. sell windows on ebay
    5. ????
    6. profit!

    Interestingly, if you could get more than $3 from selling windows which you most probably could, it would beat begging the oem to refund you the windows price.